Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 24 (225 MHz)






San Francisco 11, Us 3, San Mateo 3, Geneva 3, Lombardy 2, Chester Fung 2, Cal 2, Jonathan 1, Campos 1, Mr. Fung 1, Michael Chung 1, Abc 1, Cheng 1, Chester 1, Mta 1, Bikes 1, The City 1, Balboa Park 1, California 1, Unquestion 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 24, 2013
    7:30 - 8:00pm PDT  

transportation study. is there any approval that san mateo county is providing there? >> our agreement is that this study is essentially being co-led by the two management agencies, the authority here in san francisco and the agency called the city county association of government of san mateo county. >> okay. thank you. >> i just had a question about a potentially controversial issue on the bay shore cal trans station on the san mateo county side and different efforts to look into moving it into san francisco side north and can you talk about that issue? >> sure. so the topic you are talking about is the idea to
move that bay short cal trans station north from where it is now into san francisco? and we understand that that is an idea that has been put out there. it has been made pretty clear to us that it's not necessarily and idea that would benefit them and for efforts that are jointly funded and efforts that are looking to what are joint benefits to both counties, we would look at ideas that would jointly benefit the counties. while we understand that that idea is something that san francisco is interested in moving forward with and with the authority staff were interested in finding opportunities to look at that and move that idea forward, we are not going to enter that into joint effort we have with san mateo county to preserve
relationships and respect the process that has been thus far conducted to come up with a jointly agreed upon planning effort. >> okay. thank you. >> miss cheng. >> there has certainly been some interest on the san francisco side and from our mayor's office they are looking at a separate planning effort around the site to explore those options of including moving the station up northward but that would not be part of the this study. that would only be a san francisco study. as we note before any possibility of doing that would involve much more of the brt link, a whole issue of transportation issues. >> since the goal of
transforming this whole area which involves not only -- which we don't know what's going to happen to point and the executive part that is being developed. we should look at every option and hopefully we can put self interest aside and look at the whole interest as a whole. but look at that project as a separate study. >> thank you. commissioner breed had a question? >> okay. thank you so much. >> if you don't mind a final note. i want to thank chester from our transportation authority team. this effort has been really exciting on the part of the two, multiple staff have worked on it and even ten years prior with jose louis
himself looking at the additional bicounty with san mateo. we do think the lasting value of the methodology and hopefully this project will come to fruition. it links all three cities. on the west side we see other applications with the san francisco state and sharing with the city and the 2 counties on the infrastructure side and the pier 70 where we have multiple stake holders and potential contributors to solution in partnership with the city. thank you. >> if there are no other questions, thank you so much. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? please come forward and
3 minutes max. >> good morning commissioners. my name is jonathan short. general manager of the universal paragon. we have a major land holder in the area. we have been involved in this process since it's inception first i want to compliment staff for their fine work in this area. it's really a difficult process to steward particularly when there are different technical methodologies and development priorities on boetsd both sides of the county line and also want to thank stuff for including the private stake holders like our company in the outreach historically. we are concerned. we have not given the opportunity to review this final plan before it's come before you today. we believe
because some meaningful adjustments have been made since the draft that it would just make sense for us to have some time to review this final draft and actually have the opportunity discuss it in more detail with staff before the final approval comes about and so i'm therefore requesting that this approval be put off for one meeting so that that can happen. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. is there anyone else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. let me ask mr. fung, is there any harm in delaying the vote for a week as mr. sharp requested or up one meeting? >> let me propose that we meet with upc and see if we can
understand what their input is and maybe resolve whatever issues they may have between now and the full board? >> okay. so we have different options. we can move this forward today and you can have negotiations before the full board meets, i think it's next tuesday. i think that sound reasonable. so thank you. so colleagues, is there a motion on this item? >> i would like to take a motion to move it forward to the full board. can we move on this with the understanding that staff will discuss this with universal paragon. thank you. we move forward with a positive recommendation. thank you everyone. please call item or the next item? >> allocation of 759,000 to the
department of public works, the appropriation of fund for one request and allocation of 46,000 to delay funds cash flow schedules and amendment of the pedestrian circulation of the participation prachlt. program. this is an action item. >> thank you, i'm with the planning authority. just for your reference in the packet, this item begins on page 25 and there is an attachment of some high level details beginning on page 29 of the packet. i will highlight the 3 request and the one san francisco state request and michael chung will come back to highlight the geneva visibility study request. i know there is an enclosure to the request from the sponsors
here. the first project is dpw request to use the funds to replace equipment and repair and cleaning vehicles in order to meet california air resources board requirements. the funds will be used on 36 vehicles that would otherwise be taken out of service. these vehicles will be retro fitted with new parts. this should be complete by 2013. the next project is dpw improvement project. the funds are used for the design and production i am improvements, 23rd avenue and flora drive. this will be a local match for federal grant funts and improvement is flashing being beacons. it
will be used to april 14. the project is being coordinated with the cal trans paving project which is set to the paved in 2014. the construction of the production improvement should be completed by march 15. the final is broadway improvement phase, this will improve broadway sidewalk and install sidewalks and this is part of the overall i am improvements that we've been seeing along broadway. the project cost increase about $260,000 because of increase and management production cost and contractors were over the estimate. rebidding will only delay the project and result in
similar bid. therefore decided to go forward and use the funds. construction on that should start april 14 and completed december 13. this last one i will talk about is prop a a funding from san francisco state university t request is $146,000 to fund design of improvement on north drive. some of the specific i am improvements include new sidewalks and improvement lighting. san francisco state staff will coordinate with the appropriate agencies with the transportation agency and public utilities commission
with school district which own areas along where the i am improvements will be made and then a construction of these i am improvements can begin as soon as this fall. with that, chester fung will discuss the geneva. >> thank you. chester fung planning with the authority. this is the study that was referenced in the previous item you just heard. the geneva visibility study. the boundaries are to balboa park station. for the eastern water front and southern part of the city. while the far eastern around western end had been previously studied there are some middle portions that had not been studied and settled so there is a neat effort to look
at the remaining gaps and making sure the segments are compatible with each other and create a comprehensive design for the full corridor. the advising committee to help shape the project, additional outreach committees for that and development interim and permanent solution where we are mentioning previously as well as transit system benefits finally a plan related to the work for the bicounty study. the cost is $550,000. the partners in san mateo county are expected to contribute $250,000. that's -- is there any -- that's the end of our presentation. >> thank you. colleagues, if there are no questions let's
open this up for public comment. anyone from the public would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can we move this forward without objection. >> so moved? thank you. >> next item. >> 5 year plan. >> thank you. >> good morning. don't panic before you have the enclosure which is in your packet. which is 256789 25. i can go over this more quickly. we can wer going to this in our website this is an opportune time to really answer the key question that you see up on that slide. is how do you want to spend tax dollars. i'm going over quickly as why
should we care. quickly the abc's of the relationship of key prop k plan. special arts and how that relates to the san francisco transportation plan which you will have an update on this agenda and what was the process on the schedule. this is probably the key slide. this is the big chance for the board, public, private sponsors to get together and decide what do we want to fund in the next five years. we are looking at the 13, 14, 16, 17, timeframe. one of the main objectives of this was to develop courtesy of the advisory of citizens who put together the expenditure plan. this is to provide
transparency and how do we decide which projects will be funded and which won't. and what are those projects. we can see them ahead of time for the next five years. that provides earlier opportunities and allows you can to coordinate even sponsors for the projects. as i mentioned prop k was admitted in 2003. i will go some of the details. in 2003, there was over $2 billion in state and local funds. a total of $12 billion program. we had instances in the past actually where private sponsors had been unable to draw down on funds because we ran out of local match. we could not deemphasize
as leveraging in some other fund sources. probably a boring picture. the expenditure plan had a list of specific projects in some cases and programs. there are 4 major categories or types of projects that receive sales tax. the biggest wedge there is traffic. there is strategic projects, initiatives, parking management and para transit. so take away message on this slide for you and those watching, if prop k is overwhelmingly project, the only noteworthy operating project is about the 8.6 percent operations currently providing about 50 percent of the budget for this. we get asked why isn't there more operating support here. the sales tax is now bringing in
about $800 million. so now i'm going to talk about those documents. the plan, i mentioned it named specific projects. basically what it does is it determines eligibility for funds and says project x can receive a make minimum of this much over a 30 year life of expenditure plan. there is a bunch of other requirements. up here on the screen you can see the eligible projects sponsors. in some cases projects come with a specific sponsor like the subway, the project, in cases we have projects like bicycle circulation and we have mta and cal trans and bart. one things i will note for the community
is that unlike the predecessor program, the operators and if we have money on the table, the authority has more influences from in shaping those projects. within the expenditure plan, a number of requirements to which are their needs to be developed and adopted by the authority board. also for all of the programmatic categories. these are non-specific categories, circulation safety. each of those have developed a 5 year prioritization program as a prerequisite as to provide funds. we need to have these in place before we can fund the bicycle project. so i talked about the expenditure plan, our voting approved document. what is a strategic plan, this is the tool that guides our
implementation of the sales tax. it has three phases. there is a property component and sales component and expenditures. expenditures includes both the authority operation expenses and how much money and what yearcious and how fast they will spend those funds and prop k will allow us to spend those funds. so the strategic plan can put all that together and has a nice complicated model if we need the do that. okay. i'm already half way done. now that the 5 year prioritization program, i will not read these. it slides are showing you the 21 categories covers from rehab project to
escalator project, the bus rapid transit project and signals and signs and these projects we love that are delivered throughout the neighborhood, planting of trees. >> miss lombardy oh, we have a question. >> in part of going into your presentation if you can maybe delve into at some point how do you ensure equity in terms of allocation of resources especially among the supervisory districts to make sure we are not neglecting any part of the city. i think this is a general question that we've had in the past. if you can as you are going through your presentation if you can point to how that is addressed thank you? >> perfect timing for the next slide. equity, where it gets
addressed in the -- they are highly -- programs. they have two main pieces of concern can one is the prioritization methodology. how do we decide which gets funded and which don't. there is a project with 5 year scope. the expenditure plan has some prioritization sectors that are required for all of the programs. one of them is actually geographically. there is one opportunity here. we are looking at a 5 year slot. as we put together the 5 ypp the help of new interactive map that we are going to have online by the end of the month you will be able to see all the of the projects that were funded since the inception of prop k and the next five year list we can put
the proposed projects up. that's one way to do it. prop k isn't the only funding source in town. we'll get a sense of equity. >> miss lombardy, when is that map going to be online? >> there is going to be one at our website. the board meeting next week, we'll show you a quick preview. >> very good. >> i will come back to that equity section in a couple more slides. with unquestion is why we are doing this now. we do this every four years to coordinate with the regional
transportation plan update because both from the prop case, we provide input to the regional transportation regarding what priority and what kind of programs they want to see. when ftc creates programs and we have to update our -- we want to make sure we are lining up projects. it very much a process. this particular update allows us to coordinate with the san francisco plan update. an is we see recommendations coming out of the san francisco transportation plan this is an opportunity to do that. there is draft is due out in june, july timeframe and that's perfect for providing feedback for these 5 ypp's. how are these put together.
it's behind-the-scenes it's basically called creative baseline. we put in actual revenues, debt expenditures, actual expenditures and reimbursement to see where we are. these two sides give you a little hint to the kinds of things we are looking at. the yellow line with the sales tax revenue projections and the tl lines we are quite a bit lower with economic down turns and we've recovered and now we are getting more sales tax. we are in the process of developing a long term forecast and that will be critical in terms of seeing how much is available to projects. the good news, with the other things we are doing, we are looking at the fund we have programmed in 2009, how
much should we allocate. this shows you here for instance for the programmatic categories which is the top lines there, 9, 10, 11, 12, we have $286 million programmed. that money is available as soon as this year or 13-14 as sponsors are able to deliver it. this is for all the existing allocation that are out there is sponsors who have large balances to see if the project scale has been extended. seeing all of this is letting us know how much money we'll see going out each year. we haven't issued long-term debt, interest rate is very
low. to be able to deliver transit center, we'll see a bump available to see it go down. >> commissioner campos, does the lateness and delivery impact the analysis of whether a project is a priority, is that a sign that maybe it's not as needed or time sensitive? does that impact the analysis at all? >> i wouldn't say it wouldn't impact the project when it's needed. but when they say they want to do this project in the next years and doubled delivered in the prior years, we talk about the resources and what has changed to change the pace. that is what discussion we have with the sponsors. >> from that discussion you
learn from supervisors when it becomes none that there is priority on one project? >> absolutely. for the whole process we'll come back to you. with a proposed prioritization methodology and a draft for these conversations. the mechanics of this will say we are doing the baseline now which set for here is how much money is available. then we work with the project sponsors to say, in the next five years what would you like to deliver, that's a conversation that starts with the authority board and which should be the lead to develop for each category. as i mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, some categories have multiple project sponsors. bikes, as an example. the mta can sponsor
projects. it no the a retail row. it's the mta to be responsible to meet with cal trans and bart to develop projects. we would invite other interested partners who ma want to coordinate a projector be part of that conversation and also outreach requirements that the sponsors have to take as well as multiple assistants and advisory committee and the board and outreach that will be going on this spring in the summer. so very briefly here is a schedule that is in more detail on page 45 of your packet. the idea that the main work course of this period is may, june, if we are working with you, the project sponsors, a draft prioritization of methodology and we'll come